A plaint must disclose a clear and enforceable cause of action; if it does not, it can be rejected under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code.

JUDGMENT :

Satyen Vaidya, J.

1. By way of this appeal, the appellant has assailed order dated 15.12.2023 passed by learned Single Judge in OMP No.189 of 2021 in Civil Suit No. 83 of 2019 whereby the application of the appellant under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure (for short “Code”) seeking rejection of the plaint has been dismissed.

2. The parties hereafter shall be referred to by the same status as they hold in Civil Suit No. 83 of 2019. The appellant is the defendant and the respondent herein is the plaintiff.

3. The plaintiff has filed a suit for recovery of Rs.129.51 crores along with interest pendent lite and future @ Rs.12% per annum against the defendant.

4. The premise of the suit as culled out from the contents of plaint is that the plaintiff had awarded major civil works being Package-I and Package-II relating to execution of 412 MW Rampur Hydro Electric Project (for short, “RHEP”) on 01.02.2007 to the defendant, after due evaluation by the Tender Evaluation Committee. It is averred that in pursuance to the notification dated 28.05.2008 issued by the Government of Himachal Pradesh, the labourers engaged in the construction of Hydro Electric Projects (for short, “HEPs”) being constructed in non-tribal areas of Himachal Pradesh were made entitled to additional 25% over and above prevalent minimum wages. Such allowance was popularly known as “Hydro Allowance”.

4.1 The labourers engaged in RHEP by the defendant staged dharna/strike in the project area on 28.09.2009 under the aegis of Labour Unions. The defendant had taken a stand that such allowance was not permissible to the labour employed in RHEP. Since, the labour strike continued, resulting in obstruction to the progress of the project work, plaintiff in order to resolve the issue, had constituted a committee on 05.03.2010. The Committee had submitted its recommendation on 19.03.2010. As a result, plaintiff issued an order for release of payment on account of additional component of 25% “Hydro Allowance”, subject to execution of an undertaking by the defendant that modality of the order would be agreeable to it and no claim would be raised on this account in any forum in future against the plaintiff. The said decision was said to have been made subject to further undertaking that actual payment on account of “Hydro Allowance” would not be less than the amount claimed by the defendant. In this way, a total sum of Rs.79.02 crore was released to the defendant.

4.2 It is further submitted that the Auditors vide annual report for the year 2016-2017, made observations with respect to the omission of defendant in passing on the benefit of “Hydro Allowance” to the labour in its totality and had found reimbursement of an amount of Rs.72,04,20,580/- due from the defendant.

4.3 As per the plaintiff, the Chief Vigilance Officer (for short, “CVO”) of plaintiff vide a communication dated 10.05.2018 addressed to the project authorities, required them to recover from the defendant the excess payment. To similar extents were the instructions imparted by the Deputy Chief Vigilance Officer (‘DCVO’) of the plaintiff on 31.07.2019.

4.4 The plaintiff also issued a communication to the defendant on 12.07.2018 claiming the entire amount of “Hydro Allowance” to the extent of Rs.74.00 crores includ